Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Identity of employer

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2025

LAM KAM HOI v. CHONG KONG LAU trading as 將軍澳環保廢料回收站

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1200
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1987/2020

On an overall evaluative assessment of the factual indicia (control, payment, instructions, use and function of the truck, close connections between respondent and Hang Hau and contemporaneous evidence) respondent was the employer on the balance of probabilities; contemporaneous medical records rebutted the Form 9 finding of left shoulder injury causation so 1% LEC applies; total certified sick leave of 583 days stands; monthly earnings found to be HK$23,000; compensation computed accordingly.
31 Jan 2023

SAM FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. YAT MING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT64/2020

The application for interim payment was dismissed because the identity of the plaintiff's employer is a triable factual issue requiring trial and cross-examination; therefore there exists an arguable defence such that interim payment cannot be ordered on the materials before the court.
5 Feb 2016

JIANG ZHONG v. YEUNG CHUN LEUNG formerly t/a DREAM HOME WORKSHOP AND OTHERS

Citation

JIANG ZHONG v. YEUNG CHUN LEUNG formerly t/a DREAM HOME WORKSHOP AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1267/2010

Court exercised its discretion under section 2(2) ECO in favour of the injured plaintiff; on the balance of probabilities Yeung was the plaintiff's employer and breached duties as employer and occupier; Up Cheer was an occupier who failed to take reasonable care in selecting and supervising the contractor and is therefore liable in tort; Cheng/Ah Loi were not proven to be employers; no contributory negligence; specified statutory and common law damages awarded with set offsets and costs orders.
12 Mar 2010

CHEUNG WAN HUNG v. FAI WONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD

Citation

CHEUNG WAN HUNG v. FAI WONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI136/2009

Application to re-amend the Amended Defence to withdraw the admission was refused because the defendant's explanation was unsatisfactory and arguably deliberate, the defendant was the author of the mistake, trial was imminent and the prejudice to the plaintiff (delay, joinder and limitation risk) outweighed any prejudice to the defendant or insurer; accordingly the discretionary balance favoured refusal.
20 Nov 2008

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2008

Order 11 must be read by reference to the action as a whole; an admission by the in‑jurisdiction defendant does not automatically bar the plaintiff from pursuing alternative defendants out of the jurisdiction; on the pleaded facts and documents the plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried as to the identity of the employer, so leave to serve out of jurisdiction was properly restored and the application to discharge the orders was properly dismissed.
20 Nov 2008

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/2008

Order 11 must be read by reference to the action as a whole; a local defendant's admission does not preclude the plaintiff pursuing alternative defendants and does not negate the need to consider whether there is a real issue to be tried against out‑of‑jurisdiction defendants; on the facts the plaintiff had shown a serious issue as to identity of employer so leave to serve out of jurisdiction was properly granted; the appeal is dismissed.
24 Jan 2008

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2005

D2 and D3 are proper or necessary parties within Order 11 r1(1)(c) and there is a serious question to be tried against them; the 1st defendant's admission that it was the employer does not preclude alternative pleadings or bind the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff's appeal is allowed and the court would, if necessary, grant leave for substituted service of the Amended Statement of Claim on D2 and D3.
14 Nov 1995

CHONG HAU SAI v. MOK KUEN SHING and Others

Citation

CHONG HAU SAI v. MOK KUEN SHING and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA75/1995

The Presiding Officer was entitled to reject the employer's evidence of theft as unsubstantiated; consequently the dismissal was not with cause, the liability finding in favour of the Claimants is affirmed, but because the identity of the real employer is unclear the award against Chong Hau Sai is set aside and the question of the true employer is remitted to the tribunal for further factual inquiry.